Emerging infectious disease: trends in the literature on SARS and H7N9 influenza

Measuring the funding landscape of COVID-19 research

Purpose

The purpose of the study is to map the funding status of COVID-19 research. The various aspects, such as funding ratio, geographical distribution of funded articles, journals publishing funded research and institutions that sponsor the COVID-19 research are studied. To visualize the country collaboration network and research trends/hotspots in the field of COVID-19 funded research, keyword analysis is also performed. The open-access (OA) status of the funded research on COVID-19 is also discussed.

Design/methodology/approach

The leading indexing and abstracting database, i.e. Web of Science (WoS), was used to retrieve the funded articles published on the topic COVID-19. The scientometric approach, more particularly “funding acknowledgment analysis (FAA),” was used to study the research funding.

Findings

A total of 5,546 publications of varied nature have been published on COVID-19, of which 1,760 are funded, thus indicating a funding ratio of 32%. China is the leading producer of funded research (760, 43.182%) on COVID-19 followed by the USA (482, 27.386%), England (179, 10.17%), Italy (119, 6.761%), Germany (107, 6.08%) and Canada (107, 6.08%). China is also in lead in terms of the funding ratio (60.94%). However, the funding ratio of the USA (31.54%) is at 11th rank behind Canada (40.68%), Germany (34.18%) and England (35.87%). The USA occupies a central position in the collaboration network having the highest score of articles with other countries (n = 489), with the USA–China collaboration ranking first (n = 123). National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) is the largest source of funding for COVID-19 research, supporting 342 (19.432%) publications, followed by the United States Department of Health Human Services (DHHS) and National Institute of Health (NIH), USA with 211 (11.989%) and 200 (11.364%) publications, respectively. However, China's National Key Research and Development Program achieves the highest citation impact (80.24) for its funded publications. Journal of Medical Virology, Science of the Total Environment and EuroSurveillance are the three most prolific journals publishing 63 (3.58%), 35 (1.989%) and 32 (1.818%), respectively, of the sponsored research articles on the COVID-19. A total of 3,138 institutions produce funded articles with Huazhong University of Science Technology and Wuhan University from China at the forefront publishing 92 (5.227%) and 83 (4.716%) publications, respectively. The funded research on COVID-19 is largely available in OA mode (1,674, 95.11%) and mainly through the Green and Bronze routes. The keyword clustering reveals that the articles mainly focus on the impact, structure and clinical characteristics of the virus.

Research limitations/implications

The study's main limitation is that the results are based on the publications indexed by WoS, which has limited coverage compared to other databases. Moreover, all the funding agencies do not require or authors miss to acknowledge funding sources in their publications, which ultimately undermines the number of funded publications. The research publications on COVID-19 are also proliferating; thus, the study's findings shall be valid for a minimum period.

Practical implications

The funding of research on the COVID-19 is highly essential to accelerate innovative research and help countries fight against the global pandemic. The study's findings reflect the efforts made by nations and institutions to remove the financial and accessibility hurdles. It not only underscores the lead of the USA in the research on COVID-19, but also shows China as a forerunner in sponsoring the research, thus, helping to know the contribution of nations toward understanding the dynamics of pandemic and controlling it. The study will help healthcare practitioners and policymakers recognize the areas that remain the focus of sponsored research on COVID-19 and other left-out areas that need to be taken up and thus may help in policy formulation. It further highlights the impact of prolific funding agencies so that efforts may be initiated to increase the impact and thereby the returns of investment. The study can help to map the scientific structure of COVID-19 through the lens of funded research and recognize core inclinations of its development. Overall, a comprehensive analysis has been performed to present the detailed characteristics of sponsored research on emerging area of COVID-19, and it is informative, useful and one of its kind on the theme.

Originality/value

The study explores the funding support of research on COVID-19 and its other aspects, along with the mode of availability.

Covid-19 pandemic and the unprecedented mobilisation of scholarly efforts prompted by a health crisis: Scientometric comparisons across SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV literature

During the current century, each major coronavirus outbreak has triggered a quick and immediate surge of academic publications on its respective topic. The spike in research publications following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreak, however, has been like no other. The global crisis caused by the Covid-19 pandemic has mobilised scientific efforts at an unprecedented scale. In less than 5 months, more than 12,000 research items and in less than seven months, more than 30,000 items were indexed, while it is projected that the number could exceed 80,000 by the end of 2020, should the current trend continues. With the health crisis affecting all aspects of life, research on Covid-19 seems to have become a focal point of interest across many academic disciplines. Here, scientometric aspects of the Covid-19 literature are analysed and contrasted with those of the two previous major coronavirus diseases, i.e., Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). The focus is on the co-occurrence of key-terms, bibliographic coupling and citation relations of journals and collaborations between countries. Interesting recurring patterns across all three literatures were discovered. All three outbreaks have commonly generated three distinct cohorts of studies: (i) studies linked to public health response and epidemic control, (ii) studies on chemical constitution of the virus; and (iii) studies related to treatment, vaccine and clinical care. While studies affiliated with category (i) seem to have been relatively earliest to emerge, they have overall received relatively smaller number of citations compared to publications the two other categories. Covid-19 studies seem to have been disseminated across a broader variety of journals and across a more diverse range of subject areas. Clear links are observed between the geographical origins of each outbreak as well as the local geographical severity of each outbreak and the magnitude of research originated from regions. Covid-19 studies also display the involvement of authors from a broader variety of countries compared to SARS and MERS. Considering the speed at which the Covid-19-related literature is accumulating, an interesting dimension that warrants further exploration could be to assess if the quality and rigour of these publications have been affected.

COVID-19 publications: Database coverage, citations, readers, tweets, news, Facebook walls, Reddit posts

The COVID-19 pandemic requires a fast response from researchers to help address biological, medical, and public health issues to minimize its impact. In this rapidly evolving context, scholars, professionals, and the public may need to identify important new studies quickly. In response, this paper assesses the coverage of scholarly databases and impact indicators during March 21, 2020 to April 18, 2020. The rapidly increasing volume of research is particularly accessible through Dimensions, and less through Scopus, the Web of Science, and PubMed. Google Scholar’s results included many false matches. A few COVID-19 papers from the 21,395 in Dimensions were already highly cited, with substantial news and social media attention. For this topic, in contrast to previous studies, there seems to be a high degree of convergence between articles shared in the social web and citation counts, at least in the short term. In particular, articles that are extensively tweeted on the day first indexed are likely to be highly read and relatively highly cited 3 weeks later. Researchers needing wide scope literature searches (rather than health-focused PubMed or medRxiv searches) should start with Dimensions (or Google Scholar) and can use tweet and Mendeley reader counts as indicators of likely importance.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Corona Pandemic in Social Sciences: A Review of Influential Aspects and Conceptual Structure

Corona pandemic has affected the whole world, and it is a highly researched area in biological sciences. As the current pandemic has affected countries socially and economically, the purpose of this bibliometric analysis is to provide a holistic review of the corona pandemic in the field of social sciences. This study aims to highlight significant, influential aspects, research streams, and themes. We have reviewed 395 journal articles related to coronavirus in the field of social sciences from 2003 to 2020. We have deployed 'biblioshiny' a web-interface of the 'bibliometrix 3.0' package of R-studio to conduct bibliometric analysis and visualization. In the field of social sciences, we have reported influential aspects of coronavirus literature. We have found that the 'Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report' is the top journal. The core article of coronavirus literature is 'Guidelines for preventing health-care-associated pneumonia'. The most commonly used word, in titles, abstracts, author's keywords, and keywords plus, is 'SARS'. Top affiliation is 'The University of Hong Kong'. Hong Kong is a leading country based on citations, and the USA is on top based on total publications. We have used a conceptual framework to identify potential research streams and themes in coronavirus literature. Four research streams are found by deploying a co-occurrence network. These research streams are 'Social and economic effects of epidemic disease', 'Infectious disease calamities and control', 'Outbreak of COVID 19,' and 'Infectious diseases and the role of international organizations'. Finally, a thematic map is used to provide a holistic understanding by dividing significant themes into basic or transversal, emerging or declining, motor, highly developed, but isolated themes. These themes and subthemes have proposed future directions and critical areas of research.

Bibliometric analysis of pathogenic organisms

Infectious diseases remain as an important public health threat to humans. Research into pathogens can be useful for planning an organized response to infectious diseases. Bibliometric analysis is an important method for scientific research and assessing capability. In this study, 100 pathogens of public health importance were selected, and the distributions of annual, national, institutional, and journal publications on Science Citation Index (SCI) journals were statistically analyzed. The United States of America ranked the first in terms of the number of relevant studies published. China attaches great importance to the prevention and control of infectious diseases, but still needs to improve in the following areas: for example, insufficient SCI reports on particular pathogens, institutions SCI reports on pathogens lower than world top pathogen research institutions, and lack of influential international pathogen-related journals. Scientific literature databases are important tools for science-of-science analysis. The findings of this study shed light on the hot spots and the ignored spots in pathogen researches, and thus would be useful for drawing a national and institutional research plan.